Mass and energy · Capstone

Rebuild the September argument

Which premise does the work, and which subtraction removes what cannot be measured?

What to do with this page

Explain to someone else why a body that gives off light loses mass, which subtraction removes what cannot be measured, and why the finite-speed quotient is not the exact mass loss.

Each claim below links to the passage it is read from. Follow the links and the argument is the paper's; read only this page and it is a summary of the paper, which is a different thing and says so.

Open the paper

The six claims, in the order the paper makes them

The chain below fixes what must come before what, and 2 arrangements satisfy it. The paper prints one of them; the others are not mistakes.

  1. An imported resultNeeds nothing before it

    The energy of a light complex transforms between two frames by a rule the June paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies established in its section eight. This paper quotes that result instead of deriving it again.

    Read this in the paper

    The imported result is the one step this paper does not take for itself. Its provenance is the June paper, quoted here in the opening.

  2. An assumptionNeeds nothing before it

    A body at rest gives off equal amounts of light in opposite directions, so it is still at rest in the frame where it began.

    Read this in the paper

  3. A derivationUses claim 1 and claim 2

    Write the body's energy before and after the emission in both frames. Each frame gives a balance, and in the moving frame the two pulse energies depend on the emission angle while their sum does not.

    Read this in the paper

  4. A derivationUses claim 3

    Subtracting one balance from the other removes the internal energies nobody has measured, provided the difference between a body's two frame energies is its kinetic energy plus a constant that the emission leaves unchanged.

    Read this in the paper

    The cancellation does not establish the premise it leans on. The paper asserts that the constant is the same before and after the emission, and later writers questioned that.

  5. A derivationUses claim 4

    Where the speed is small against the speed of light, the surviving difference takes the Newtonian form, with a coefficient carrying the emitted energy divided by the square of the speed of light.

    Read this in the paper

    The low-speed form is an approximation. Treating its quotient as the exact mass loss is the mistake this capstone is built around.

  6. A generalizationUses claim 5

    The body's mass after the emission is smaller by the emitted energy divided by the square of the speed of light, and the paper then states the general proposition that a body's mass measures its energy content.

    Read this in the paper

    The general proposition reaches past radiation to any energy a body gives up. The paper states it; the argument above establishes the radiation case.

What the argument is granted

Every claim above names the assumptions it uses. These are the things the paper is given or asserts rather than establishes, and the fourth claim is where one of them does the work.

The displays this argument turns on

Where to watch the quantities move

What this does not claim

The paper never writes the equation it is now quoted for, and this capstone does not supply it. Nothing here says that mass turns into light: the body loses inertia in proportion to the energy it gives off. No ledger on this page carries an absolute rest energy.